[proto-team] Re: PROTO - proceeding on adding PROTO shepherds to the tracker

[Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]>]

Overall I support the proposal and my thanks for your work towards  
getting this done.  My apologies for taking so long to review this as  
you requested; I added it to my todo list but you know how that  
sometimes works :)

My review/nits follow

1. WG Document Awaiting Review, Substates

First, I don't know if we can accurately reflect the number/kind of  
reviews a document needs as a sub-state.  Besides MIB Doctor reviews,  
we could expect/require security directorate reviews, Apps review  
team response (Eric Burger is putting together such a team), or  
reviews by particular experts (I have in the past sought out  
particular experts, e.g. in i18n, to request reviews).

Second, Another reason to avoid substates is that not all reviews are  
blocking.  A review from a particular expert might be sought before  
WG last call, but if it doesn't happen in time, the WG might go to  
the next stage anyway and still hope to get the review.

Thus, I recommend that we allow shepherds to use free text to  
describe why the document is awaiting review and by whom, and whether  
this is truly blocking or a courtesy to wait a couple weeks in this  
state.

2.  In WG Last Call

I don't see a need for sub-states here.

3. I don't understand the proposed "groups" and permissions  
mechanism.  What are some examples of useful groups?  Who would  
administer them?


Thanks,
Lisa

On May 10, 2006, at 7:00 AM, Allison Mankin wrote:

> Hi, IESG,
>
> Henrik and I have written a draft with the requirements for adding
> the PROTO shepherds to the tracker, and the PROTO team has had it
> for long enough; we're ready for the IESG and WG Chairs to look it
> over.  Ray has a meeting with the IETF-Neustar Tools Management Team
> in about ten days, so we're looking for your comments before May 19.
>
> It's a very short document.
>
> We're sending a separate request to the WG Chairs list today.
>
> We have a document for IAB and IRTF document shepherds and will ask
> those groups to review that.  I'll include a pointer to that as well.
>
> To answer two likely questions: the WG Chairs and WG Secretaries
> already have individual passwords, so we believe the enrollment  
> process
> is in hand (more or less).  And the document describes augmenting
> the system access controls (already present, e.g. those that control
> who can ballot), e.g. non-IESG users do not have access to the
> Last Call and Approval states.
>
> Details/more comments can be iterated at any time later.  However,  
> if we can
> give Ray this document at the end of next week in a pretty stable  
> form, then
> this work can get under way.
>
> Anyone who has shepherds wanting to join in the PROTO testing should
> send them over (and plan on paying some attention yourself).
>
> Till the draft pops out, a copy is at:
>
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/proto/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair- 
> tracker-ext/draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-tracker-ext-00.txt
>
> And the one for iab/irtf docs:
>
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/proto/draft-ietf-proto-iab-irtf- 
> tracker-ext/draft-ietf-proto-iab-irtf-tracker-ext-00.txt
>
> Allison for PROTO
>


_______________________________________________
proto-team mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/proto-team